and it doesn't seem like how many barriers or safeguards you put in place, but you'll find that even in 2001, you still have -- you still have kind of a really serious backlash against a particular ethnic community of americans. and i was wondering, you mentioned that there was rj rummel, who sort of had sort of a solution about the unbalance of power, unchecked power. you sort of need to diffuse it through with education. but i guess i was wondering, what do you think sort of the -- if it there is some sort of a solution to the problem of as soon as everybody getszenzen owe phobic, the racist tendencies come back and we're allowed to discrim ate as much as we can. what can we do? it seems like history has shown throughout the 20th century, the chinese are facing the problems. is there some sort of

fundamental change in legal or political agencies or economic agencies that asian-american organizations, the whole country should be pushing for? i'm just sort of wondering. >> i think individually, everyone has to speak out. i'm not sure that to have like some kind of government-sponsored initiative would be -- i mean, would be enough. so i think that everyone has to do what they can to address these needs. and i'm a big proponent of grass roots activism. i just don't think that a lot of these problems can be solved by just a handful of elected officials. it has -- there has to be a nationwide effort among people to stay on top of what's happening. and that requires an educated populus. if you don't have an educated populus, then people are going

to be very vulnerable to the stereotypes. they will not question them. and when they emerge, they'll think that whatever is being pur have aed in the media is correct. and i think that there has to be an ongoing effort among every individual to gain access to information, government information, which already is a struggle in itself. and then be able to judge it and evaluate it and act upon it. that requires -- that requires education and it also requires a real civic commitment on the part of all americans. too often, i hear people say, well, this is -- what's happening in the world today, it's all too big for me. i am just a little guy. there's nothing i can do. and i'm just going to leave it up to whoever is in charge. that kind of mind-set and impulse is extraordinarily dangerous. because it's going to only encourage that concentration of power in the hands of elite that

we were just talking about with rj rummel's research. and so i think the solution is you're going to have to have watchdog groups constantly, you know, monitoring the activities of those who are in power. well, c-span is here today. i would say that, for example, just the existence of a program like c-span, which gives us direct access to some of these government activities without the filtering, you know, medium of the networks is extremely valuable contribution to our society. but, you know, it also requires, like, you know, sending off freedom of immigration act requests to the government every time something develops. you want to find out where's the evidence. what's the cause of this? and what we're finding now is a lot of information that was once declassified in the national archives. they're now being reclassified.

the records of the reagan administration now are not easily -- they're not open to the public. there are many disturbing trends that are shutting down access to the public's right to get information. and that all is going to hurt our ability to sustain a healthy democracy. and the only way to fight it is for every individual to speak out when they see something that doesn't seem to be proper. and that could -- every individual has individual talents. for some people, it means meeting with our elected officials and having dialogues with them. for other people, it could mean protesting in the streets. peaceful protests. for others, it could be writing books, writing op-eds, or speaking, you know, on the radio. everyone has their own unique talents. but i'm a firm believer of grass roots activism. and the -- you know -- and kind

of making things happen from the bottom-up. so -- and i really do believe one person can make a tremendous amount of difference. one idea, one person. all significant change, i think, often comes from often one idea. and one person's decision to act against the for instances of hi. >> hi. i was wondering what issue or theme do you think is the greatest challenge facing chinese-americans today? >> the biggest challenge today. there are many. but i would say probably the biggest challenge is the sense that we are still often viewed as perpetual foreigners and not as real americans. and i think the only way to combat that is to, as i said earlier, to exercise our duties

and our obligations and our rights as americans. we have to register to vote regularly. we have to participate in it the american process of democracy. and we have to network with other groups. we cannot just, i think, socialize and work with only other chinese-americans. or asian-americans. i think that's a very dangerous thing. next week on history bookshelf, kenneth heinman discusses his book, "put your bodies upon the wheels: student revolt in the 1960s." in the book, he explores the social, cultural and economic forces that became a catalyst for college campus protests in the '60s. history bookshelf airs on american history tv every saturday at noon. all weekend long, american history tv is in little rock, arkansas to explore its rich history. you're watching american history

tv, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. north little rock is -- all of our square miles are places that i have a great deal of affection for. but this one i would have to say is special to all of us. the old mill was built in the late 1930s. it was originally built by a developer who built the lakewood area, which is one of our residential and it was dedicated to kind of reflect a bit of art. in fact, a lot of art. the concrete, as you can see around, is actually -- looks like petrified wood, but it's concrete. you know, the mill was actually never an operating grist mill. but it was constructed to reflect that kind of a ambiance about the city's and the

country's early history. and milling flour and turning it into bread. but it was done by an artist, actually, out of mexico. a fellow by the name of rodriguez was commissioned by the matthews family to come up and build this as a part of that residential neighborhood. and over the years, the city took it over. and now operates as one of our parks. one of the things that's interesting from a historical note is that this old mill is probably the only standing structure or structures that were in the movie "gone with the wind." the history reflects that that got on the script list of scenes and the opening credits -- wasn't on very long, came up and we now claim that title from a literary standpoint. there's a lot that goes on here.

you know, readings take place, weddings take place. we have folks who rent it for various things. and it's just become a symbol of north little rock. so we're awful excited about sharing that with people who come in from around the country. and frankly, it's a little bit of heaven on earth, at least from those folks who get to enjoy it here in north little rock. so we want to welcome everybody to north little rock old mill. and ask them to come whenever they have a chance to be in the neighborhood. all weekend long, american history tv is featuring little rock, arkansas. learn more about little rock and find out where c-span's local content vehicles are going next online at c-span.org/localcontent. you're watching american history tv, all weekend, every weekend, on c-span 3. there's a new website for american history tv, where you can find our schedules and preview upcoming programs.

watch featured video. as well as access ahtv's history tweets, history in the news, and social media from facebook, twitter, youtube and foursquare. follow american history tv every weekend, all weekend, on c-span 3 and online at c-span.org/history. >> although thomas jefferson was in france was the constitution was being debated and signed, he had his own ideas for the new nation. next, university of virginia history professor peter onuf, examines thomas jefferson's idea of america and how his relationship with james madison, whose ideas differed from his own, affected his opinions. this is 50 minutes. is that for me or jefferson? i confuse the two sometimes. i want to begin by talking about

the world of the founders, and i am controversially going to include jefferson as one of the founders. you students of american history know he wasn't there. and therefore, he was not the father or in any way related to the document that was produced at philadelphia. but and james madison, of course, were lifetime friends. madison is the so-called father of the constitution. and what i want to talk about a little bit today is the quarrel between these great friends who supported each other in a common project to secure the success of this great experiment in republican government. and what we can learn from their quarrels and their differences. and to get a better sense of this, i want to start by suggesting that the anxieties that president boren articulated

by today's sense of polarization of driftlessness, of the imminent collapse of the republic as the world gets warmer and warmer, i know that's a controversial position in oklahoma, and he didn't say anything about this. i think the best way to get into the founding is to understand that these were anxious people too, in anxious times. if you think things are bad now, put yourself into their world. imagine what it would have been like in a weak union of republican states on the brink of falling apart, when the very idea that the people were capable of governing themselves was extremely controversial. in fact, the idea of democracy itself had pejorative, negative connotations. what is democracy?

democracy is the rule of the mob, of the people. and the people are a beast. what would they do if they got power? well, they'd redistribute property. have you heard that before? the first charges of socialism in american history go back to the founding when anxious elites, rich people, worried that the common folk would gain control of the government. and pass what they called egreerian policies. that is, to redistribute as in ancient rome. egrarianism used to be a dirty word. remember, the american revolution was not a popular movement in its origins. it was a movement of elet's of people like thomas jefferson to protect their position in the british empire. it was a movement to reform the british empire.

americans didn't want to be americans. sometimes these days, some of us don't want to be americans. they wanted to be british. they wanted to enjoy the rights of englishmen. but their world was on the verge of falling apart. they won the american revolution, but that notion of 70% that professor -- president warren mentioned, well, john adams thought that perhaps as many as 67% of the american people weren't fully on board with the american revolution. we historians think he's exaggerating a little bit. but you get the point. there were many loyalists, happily, most of them left. no, i'm joking. most of them were accepted and incorporated in american society. there were many people who thomas paine would have called fair weather friends. which army is where? the great problem was how could this republic of republics, this

loose federation, survive? now, nobody was more conscious of the problems of union and the problems of the future of the united states than thomas jefferson, precisely because he was not in the united states, but aware of its weakness, of its impotence, of the absolute compelling to do something. but did they do the right thing in philadelphia? that is a short version of the question americans have been asking themselves ever since. i want to tell you, as a student of the early republic, that there is no universal agreement among the founders, some of whom didn't sign, among americans, in the ratifying conventions. it was a very near thing. the language of miracle that there was some divine

intervention is actually an expression of how close the whole thing came to falling apart. given the kind of people we are, you might say, how could the union possibly have survived? how could we have a union that would include the great slave holders of south carolina and the chesapeake and my ancestors, not on my polish side, my other ancestors, those flinty new englanders and their intolerance of the great neigh bobs of the south. that's just a caricature of some of the differences. but these colonies that became states had no common bond, aside from their connection with britain. they were much closer, because of the nature of their economies and societies to british society than to any emerging american society. the very idea of america is an invention. and this is the sense of the

significance of the founding enterprise. we better get it right now, because this is the only way we can guarantee that we will be remembered. the idea of the founders, it's their idea. they saw themselves as la law-givers at this unique moment in world history. the first time you could ever do this, determine your own destiny. well, the idea that they got it right, of course, is central to our civic religion in america. we worship the founders. thomas jefferson said, don't. and that's the point i want to make today. there is nobody in the founding period who is more conscious of both the danger of the union, the risks, but also he's more intensely conscious of the rights of an individual. there is a strong libertarian

tendency in jefferson's thought and his obsession with rights. on the other hand, there's a strong tendency toward realism, to be aware of the great dangers confronting the nation. and the need to mobilize the force of the nation to sustain its enterprise. so what was the problem with the constitution? why did he say to his good friend, madison, "i don't think we should revere this document. it has many imperfections, and nothing personal, gemmy, but i don't see you as a father or as a founder." now, i'm paraphrasing. it's only because i know him so well, i can say this. as i frequently point out. jefferson never would have gotten tenure at the university of virginia. his publication list is extremely limited. and he was a lousy public speaker. so why wouldn't he say, "good work, mr. madison," and we

should all rally around this document? why at just the moment when madison wanted him to say, well-done. i understand you had to make compromises that you're not happy with, but you did the right thing. why did jefferson say, "everybody on earth has a right to a bill of rights, and there's not one in the constitution." that's a major defect. and what about this idea that the president can be re-elected. you know, there's only one plausible candidate for president, and everybody knew who that was going to be. and i'm not going to mention his name. later today, you'll see gordon wood's neck tie. and it has this man's signature all over it. one person had face recognition images circulated of this one person. but was that the future? well, what if this president is perpetually re-elected and that

becomes the constitutional precedent? well, then we are squinting, more than squinting to borrow patrick henry's phrase, at monarchy. didn't we fight a revolution on the premises of the declaration of independence that all men are created equal, and government is based on the consent of the people? is that a one-off? about that just happen in 1787 or in the ratification meetings that took place thereafter when the people said yes, that's it, folks. shut up. you have a constitution. what is consent? that's jefferson's question. and that raises the question of democrat did accuracy. and this is the main point i want to make in the few minutes that i have this morning. is to suggest, in case it's news to you. but i want to suggest that there is a fundamental tension between

the traditional rule of law and constitutionalism and what we call democracy. jefferson became a democrat because he recognized that tension. and that is, jefferson made war throughout his entire career against the principles of monarchy and air stockrissy. that one single family should rule, simply because of their genealogical connections. republicanism is based on the principle that, as he put it in a famous letter to james madison, the earth belongs to the living. every generation. and that would include us, now. we are the source of our own authority. here's jefferson's radical answer to the question of who

are the founders. madison and his colleagues wanted to be remembered as founders. they wanted to have fame, a great obsession of the 18th century. sort of secular substitute for going to heaven is to be remembered in future generations. this was a heady moment for these people, but jefferson said, wait. there's a problem here. if this experiment is going to succeed, it's because we are our own founders. we have created this republic, and we will sustain it. they were anxious then. we are anxious now. that anxiety is the predicate of republican government. it's not going to be easy, folks. now, i don't want to get into a secular sermon about these times we live in. but i want to give you some

insight into how jefferson went about answering the question of how do you reconcile the sovereignty of the people with limitations on -- limitations on power that secure rights. here's the paradox. if all power comes from the people and the only legitimate break on the people's power is the people's power. how do you mobilize that? how do you keep a democratic people through processes of majority rule, the mother principle of republicanism or democracy? how do you keep them from abusing that authority because they will do it. madison famously talked about republican solutions to the problems of republican government. he was a mechanic, devising elaborate machinery to keep americans from destroying each other. a balance of power.

jefferson said, you know, what you're really doing -- i am again channelling jefferson. what you're really doing, jimmy, is you are repackaging the old regime, mixed government. you're just an anglophile. this is not the solution. this is the problem. this is -- we don't have a house of lords. we come up with some fancy classical way of talking about the senate. we don't have a king. we have a president. and, of course, our president merely presides. that's the theory. let's be honest about this new world that we have brought into being. and let's make it thoroughliy and comprehensively democratic. or republican. here are the two grand solutions that jefferson over the course of his later life, after having written the declaration of independence and served his country and his state in many

capacities, including as president of the united states, retires in 1809, and goes into his most mature period of political thought in which he brings these things together. there are two ways that we can limit the excesses of democracy, democratic ways to secure our rights. the first one i anticipated in talking about his letter to james madison and the earth belongs to the living in 1789. in this letter, jefferson suggests that the vital principle of democracy is what he described as generational sovereignty. our right to rule ourselves. of the idea of air stock raes is based on the supreme seecy of -- many of you are wondering what this hand is doing.

i'll put them both in the sky. these are, as i tell my students now, it's very powerful, because i've been threatening -- i describe myself as a nearly dead white guy in my last days. these are the dead hands of the past. i go but they still have a choke hold over you forever and ever. does that make any sense to you? the dead hands of the past. jefferson particularly worried about this, because, of course, he was deep and dead his entire life. talk about dead hands. we need to do something -- i'm not going to get sermonic again. but we need to do something about that great debt we have, everyson's prophetic -- and it was very personal to him, the debts. he died $107,000 in debt, which was an incredible amount of money in those days in 1826. he lived his entire life as if he were, as he put it, a slave to his creditors. that's a very powerful term for a slave-holder to use.

we need to overthrow the shackels of air stock accuracy, of this emerging commercial money air stock raes. we need to guarantee to each rising generation that it will be able to write the laws under which it lives. that is the vital principle of a successful republic. now, he wrote this letter to madison, and is madison couldn't believe that jefferson would say something so stupid. it was hard work getting that constitution through. at philadelphia. and even harder work to convince voters in the state ratifying conventio conventions. and you want to go back and do it all over again every 19 years? now, you might well ask how we get 19 years. and to be more precise, it's 18.8 years. and now you know jefferson is

has completely gone bananas. why would he say 18.8 years? it's because he studied actuarial statistics in france that at any given moment, let's say we today all -- can't even begin to count us all. let's imagine there are 900 people, not to mention our virtual audience across the street, that we decide to pass a law of some sort, decreeing that oklahoma sooners will win every football game in the future. i mean, that's taking popular sovereignty a little too far, i understand. but we pass a law, and be serious about it. think of some effective way to talk about it. we pass a law. in 18.8 years, the then population will include exactly 50% of those people who are alive today. and there will be another 50% who will have come on board. did they have anything to say

about this law? no. they may be corn husker fans. i know, this is such a logical absurdity of having corn husker fans in oklahoma. but we're speaking now. this is for all mankind, not just for you. so let's just imagine that we have this new generation arrive on the stage. well, the earth belongs to the living. we need to start all over again. now, madison says, that is stupid, because you know, and, of course jefferson knows, that generation, my generation, for instance, or us, we don't walk off the stage together. we die one by one. and eventually, if you look at the aggregate, then we have half and half. so how do you operationalize this principle? good question. but jefferson is doing a thought experiment here. he's asking us to think, and intuitively, you grasp it. because all of us live